Outting of Scott Lapatine

For what it's worth, at one point toward the end, the New York Post article references the not-quite-work-safe ljdrama.com instead of the correct ljdrama.org. Oops.

after an initial web-search I'd imagine something associated with VH1.

As for disclosure - I fully believe in disclosure on any topics you speak about, and if you aren't ready to give full disclosure - keep your mouth shut.

The company I work for was in the news last year on a topic I had a bit of knowledge on - but because I had decided not to talk about my connection to my company online - I decided I also shouldn't add to the collective conversation on the subject.

It's Donnie Brasco

What about people who blog about things that have nothing to do with their work, but just would rather not have their employer Google them and find a blog with entries on company time? TMFTML is right now in this very conundrum, and assuming they are doing well at their job I don't see why they should have to publish their name. I fully back up everything I write, and were my blog to really take off I probably would include my full name. However, I don't think that a blog should be discredited because the blogger would rather not have to lose their job to keep their blog.

It's a tricky issue.

it's not tricky at all. if you write something, sign your name. if you can't do that, don't blog, or get a new job. anything less is a cop out.

I don't know Jake. I think there is a middle ground between hiding and pulling a "look at me." It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out who a lot of us are, but at the same time it can be comforting to exercise some discretion and not wave our arms around for attention.

you're an idiot gothamist.

I can't say it would make much of a difference for me, but your point is taken. I think, however, that the the trust issue cuts both ways. I think you have to respect the pitfalls some face in balancing expression and employment, as well as account for the desire of some in the online sphere to mess with others just because you can. Think TMFTML. Still, I have a ton of respect for you guys throwing your entire weight behind the thing, and I do think that is what makes you sucessful.

And let me be even more frank, just to show you that I'm not a hard-hearted man: I can understand the desire not to expose yourself to the sort of ridicule and humiliation that blogging invites. But blogging is not child's play- it's something that you should take seriously and approach with a great deal of forethought and care.

I understand why someone doesn't necessarily want their phone number on their blog, but that's about as much anonymity as I accept as proper. I don't even think comments should be anonymous- If it were up to me you'd all be submitting pictures, written permission forms, and urine samples before you were allowed to post a comment on Gothamist. But Chung thinks that would be taking it too far. Still- if you are young, hot, and busty, you are still encouraged to send at least one topless picture for our "files".

how many writers have a Nom de Plume? not all bloggers want the fame and the loss of privacy. unless you have Donald's bank account, fame isn't worth much. there's a quote somewhere about work on making money first, then the fame is the easy part. think about it, would anyone care about Paris Hilton if she wasn't rich? she's got the cash, so she's doing the fame. plus being famous can turn easily into being infamous.

again, i point to the examples set by the best bloggers in new york: jen chung, felix salmon, elizabeth spiers, nick denton, pete rojas, jason kottke, meg hourihan, JVG, Lockhart Steele, anil dash, etc. first and last names all. why scurry around like a rat in the sewers when you could stroll the streets of new york city like a radiant blogger god? why indeed!

example of anonymous blogger:
http://belledejour-uk.blogspot.com/

Sitting here, thinking about not being here. I would quit any day, but my pesky need for heat and nourishment keeps me here. I would blog from home if they would ever let me leave. Still, it was my poor judgement that got me here, and that is something I have to live with. I do respect the courage of your convicitons, Jake, just don't have enough of my own or enough in the bank yet.

i'm wagering that jake, after having graduated from columbia, the runt of the ivy litter, has some trust-fund cash stashed away in mister and missus dobkin's account.

because that's really the only way i can conceive of remotely justifying the sanctimony with which one endorses the "anonymity be damned" argument, as it pertains to the employment matter in particular.

first, does super-radiant-blog-god jen chung really not post from work, and only in the wee hours of the AM and PM? how, then, do these timely posts appear, say, during the middle of the day? well, at least it sounds like a nice disclaimer for those troublesome "boss" and "working hour" search threads.

second, to put forth ideas such as "and if the people you work for are so uptight that they would fire you for something as trivial and non-work-related as blogging (i'm assuming here that you are actually getting your projects done), then you should quit simply on principle" really conveys a deep non-grasp of the present economic climate, both nationwide in terms of job loss, and ny-based in terms of media consolidation and relevant job losses. not to mention, petty employers who might very well care about worker productivity issues in terms of losing, say, an hour a day in such a visible/media-prominent fashion, as opposed to yesterday's water cooler discussions.

for those bloggers who are employed, it's a hobby, or perhaps an ambitious/hopeful means to getting out of the job that pays their rent and credit card bills each month.

for what it's worth, jake et al, i, too, endorse the idea of signing your name to your ideas, but NOT when it concerns rather trivial blog-related matters and, more importantly, conflicts with one's ability to survive economically. particularly when there are in fact a portion of us who don't have gargantuan savings accounts to fall back upon.

it's awfully presumptuous to claim the mantle of "captain of the ny media blogosphere" and to then go about using that platform to proffer a discriminatory, absolute/black-and-white series of rules and ideology regarding internet behavior and usage patterns...all in an unironic fashion.

absolutism is oftentimes a very bad thing; let people do their thing, live and let live, whatever cliches one may use here.

in other words, revel in the fact that i've posted this comment anonymously, all for a number of tactical, constructively critical reasons.

Er... correct "let it be old stuff" to "let it be stuff you wrote". Sorry, I was distracted. I guess I shouldn't be commenting at work.

I like both my job and my blog. My blog is just something else I do, not something I'd rather do. I don't think blogging (even from work) is indicative of how you feel about your job. Everyone needs a little of distraction at work. Even if you didn't like your job, to say you should just quit your job for your blog is insane. Most people need to earn money to survive.

Blogging in general is supposed to be a free-form activity and I don't believe any rules can be created to govern it. Certainly a good blog will require work and dedication, but for most of us this is simply a hobby and maybe a little bit of "child's play". Why must we follow Jake's Ten Commandments of Blogging? I guess unless having Jake read our blogs is the goal, we really don't have to. Gothamist has every right to air their opinion here since this is their site, but I think it is a tad presumptuous to designate yourself the arbiter of all things blog and to preach on correct blogging as if any other method but yours is false.

Also, if anyone wants to ridicule my blog they can feel free to comment on it, email me, or even meet me in person to embarrass me.

OK, so this could be a bit dangerous, but what the fuck. Lapatine is giving on-the-record interviews to the Post, he doesn't deserve anonymity. So here we go: the only blog I can think of which could possibly fit the bill is NewYorkish. That's my bet -- and I'm saying this safe in the knowledge that I've never met Lapatine and have no inside information about this at all.

If only it were true Jake. Speaking for myself, I have to deal with a well established corporate publications policy that has shut me down and sent me to pen name before. I'm not sure, as you point out, that you can really appreciate the concerns that come along with needing job security. I've not been at it too long, but already it has me running scared, trying to find my way back to full time student status.

I was sort of kidding above (perhaps I should have added a winking emoticon), and I would like to add that I have, do, and will continue to love Gothamist. But, as a lively discussion has blossomed on the post, I would like to add a couple of my own cents on this issue.

This whole weblogging thing is a new medium which gives everyone the freedom to express themselves in anyway they see fit, why reign it in with rules and regulations? Us anonymos all have our own reasons for hiding behind a curtain. I do agree with Jen that this anonymity does call into question our credibility, and struggled with this before I launched, but decided that credibility was not a particularly important issue for what I wanted to express; and as I’m surrounded by oodles of illegal shit and like to write about it, I actually want my credibility to be called into question (everything I write is a big fat lie, Mr. Policeman).

I guess what I’m trying to say is, write what you want to write, read what you want to read, ignore the web pages that don’t interest you and live and let live.

"and if the people you work for are so uptight that they would fire you for something as trivial and non-work-related as blogging (i'm assuming here that you are actually getting your projects done), then you should quit simply on principle."

Jake, with all due respect...I've been unemployed for 7 very long months. My unemplyment just ran out. If I were to find a job tomorrow and they told me not to blog during company time, do you honestly think that I should walk out on that job rather than wait and post from home? Are you serious?
You have no idea what the job market is like right now.

Gothamist - your points are, as usual, all well taken and you've long had my vote. Still, some cases of anonymous blogging seem different than others. There's anonymous blogging by those who do nothing to risk either their identity or the identity of those whom they blog about (like Belle de Jour) and then there's "anonymous" blogging by those who've risked their identity in a number of ways that seem antithetical to protecting one's identity (perhaps some such bloggers are now ruing the day they transformed their long overlooked blog into the substance and style of a much heralded blog - or perhaps not).

In either case tho, blogging at work is blogging at work. And although some may believe it's morally superior to doing other things you're not supposed to be doing while you're getting paid to do something else, the consequences are still the same. So if you choose to do such things, why increase the liklihood of getting caught? Or cry foul if do?

People who blog extensively about their personal lives with utter disregard are, at best, silly. I think that often bloggers are insanely suprised when they discover that--my god--someone's actually reading what they write. Yes, that's the whole point of a blog, but I suspect that people don't actually believe their words will be read at all. A few months ago, I'd definitely put myself in that category. Maybe that comes from the nature of posting: it's quick and it's often thoughtless. I learned my lesson after two posts and, at worst, it was intended as a lighthearted anecdote. If it were a huge familial bruise or a truly sensitive issue, I wouldn't have talked about it.

Quickly, on the issue of disclosure: I imagine that the luxury of being in school or not needing a job would make one feel invincible enough to proclaim that anonymity is for wimps or what have you. Rather than continue to point out the flaws in Jake's argument, I'll just say this: It's the internet. There aren't any rules. People can say what they want and disclose as much or as little as they please. That's the appeal, isn't it?

i've deleted most of my comments on this thread- after the first few i went a little bit overboard. i'd like to apologize to anyone who's feelings were hurt by my comments on anonymous blogging.

I'm going to let Jack's last comment stand- he's entitled to his opinion of me. I leave the rest of you to make up your own minds- but I'd appreciate it if that was the last comment about me personally on this thread.

old hag, the point is that it's one thing to say "i disagree strenuously with jake dobkin's opinions about anonymous blogging for the following three reasons" without talking about jake dobkin in a personal sense. so, if you want to talk about whether it is right or wrong to post anonymously, post away.